You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

The homosexual agenda is just that, a political agenda which prizes homosexuality and wishes to make it normative, why that should have so much heterosexual support I am not sure but would suspect it is a consequence of so many heterosexuals having either a weak sense of identity or the abscence of a formal sexual identity and supporting those who appear to do. Its part of what I think will be a problem for generations to come. If you think the ambivalence about authority playing out now but with its roots in the past is a bitch imagine what its going to be like when is something much more fundamental like sexual attraction.

I have to ask you what your definition of "normative" is. Do you believe that the homosexual agenda seeks to make homosexuality the predominant coupling arrangement? Or do you think it just seeks to find a place at the table; to posit that despite being a mathematical minority, homosexuality is an apolitical natural state?

On another topic, does your last sentence mean that you believe eventually homosexuals will try to shape the culture in a way that makes it a discriminatory act to restrict your sexual desires to the opposite gender?

For generations marriage has meant a relationship between a man and woman, that was considered and is still considered legitimate by the majority. It probably always will be the case whether the state legislates a different meaning or not.

A minority wishes to change this, there would appear to be a lot of reasons, vague or confused understandings of equality, rights, obligations to making people, particularly minorities, happy. However, the real reason is to validate the choices and life they are living, one of same sex attraction. Marriage has been equated with the feeling of love, not with its objective meaning of a relationship between a man and woman, so persons of a same sex choosing to have sex and equating that with feelings of love believe they should be able to "marry".

It is not about procreation or increasing the congregation, it is a problem because it is asking the majority to validate the minority, which is unhealthy for each.

The bolded statement is incorrect, as you can perhaps understand from what I've said so far.

Lark is concerned about society as a whole, and if his bizarre belief that homosexuals want to make everybody homosexual were true, he would even have reason to be concerned. As it is, he is just a loud person fighting his own illusions.

He's not alone, is the problem. There are scads and hoards of people just this ignorant who propagandize and vote.

It's not catching, Lark. It's not contagious. It's not like if I'm exposed to the idea of homosexuality, I'll become homosexual. No more than if I'm exposed to the idea of being a man, I'll become a man. People are what they are. I don't "support" homosexuality or heterosexuality. I just want people to be accepted for who they are and for people to have equal rights under the law. Marriage is a legal contract and confers certain rights and privileges. There's no reason it should be reserved for certain kinds of humans but not for others.

You think that anybody who supports the rights of people other than them secretly wishes to be those people? So if I support full civil rights for blacks, I do not have a firm sense of myself as a white person? This is making my eyes cross.

And PS -- What church? Any Christian church, but it seems to me particularly the Catholic church has a great emphasis on The Holy Family and forcefully opposes abortion rights and wants children born of the union of Catholics to receive infant baptism and for their parents to bring them up as Catholics. There's some emphasis in this way for Protestants as well but in the Protestantism that I know, not so much. (I can elaborate some if you're interested.)

And besides, homosexuality is normal. A certain percentage of people are born homosexual. This is normal. Has been happening for centuries on end.

No I dont think that, I dont know if you sincerely think that I believe that or you are being facetious or seeking to engage ridicule.

You know I've never met a homosexual who felt that heterosexuality was valid? I never met a homosexual who didnt hit on their straight company and make remarks that heterosexuals should experiment? Now that is something I've never done, I've never tried to talk anyone out of their identified sexuality once they have made it clear that its not a phase, novel experience or anything else like that. What I make of that is that homosexuality is as much a normative or cultural movement as it is anything else, whether a genetic or biochemical causative factor is discovered or not, and given that everything seeks to try to reproduce itself, and homosexuals can not do that as heterosexual families can they will seek to do it in other ways, culturally, by the spreading and uptake of their norms.

So far as the RCC goes I dont think they are that family friendly or affirming, to be honest in theory sexuality of all descriptions is devalued in contrast to spirituality, although homosexual acts, as opposed to homosexuality per se, are considered sinful and heterosexual acts for purposes other than procreation are not considered sinful per se. I'll be honest with you though, perhaps it has been how sex abuse scandals have been handled in the Church or other trends I've heard about among the shrinking population of religious in the church and how it has handled attempts to open dialogues about celibacy but I think that the RCC has become objectively opposed to heterosexuality and heterosexual love. I've read eulogising of agape, as opposed to erotic, love which I really felt where just shy of affirming male homosexuality without the act. Its really made me question my membership of this congregation.

*waits on the idiots to seize upon that*

All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.
Chapter IV, p. 448. - Adam Smith, Book 3, The Wealth of Nations

whether or not you credit psychoanalysis itself, the fact remains that we all must, to the greatest extent possible, understand one another's minds as our own; the very survival of humanity has always depended on it. - Open Culture

Looking at the poll above, I am not worried about the future. As I said, it is Lark's world that will vanish.

Given that I dont have an external locus of personality I'm not worried about and dont need validation of myself and my opinions from strangers online, including a forum poll, in fact.... at you

All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.
Chapter IV, p. 448. - Adam Smith, Book 3, The Wealth of Nations

whether or not you credit psychoanalysis itself, the fact remains that we all must, to the greatest extent possible, understand one another's minds as our own; the very survival of humanity has always depended on it. - Open Culture

He's not alone, is the problem. There are scads and hoards of people just this ignorant who propagandize and vote.

I'm not ignorant, its not ignorance that allowed me to reach my opinions and believing that it is is part of the problem.

All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.
Chapter IV, p. 448. - Adam Smith, Book 3, The Wealth of Nations

whether or not you credit psychoanalysis itself, the fact remains that we all must, to the greatest extent possible, understand one another's minds as our own; the very survival of humanity has always depended on it. - Open Culture

No I dont think that, I dont know if you sincerely think that I believe that or you are being facetious or seeking to engage ridicule.

You know I've never met a homosexual who felt that heterosexuality was valid? I never met a homosexual who didnt hit on their straight company and make remarks that heterosexuals should experiment? Now that is something I've never done, I've never tried to talk anyone out of their identified sexuality once they have made it clear that its not a phase, novel experience or anything else like that. What I make of that is that homosexuality is as much a normative or cultural movement as it is anything else, whether a genetic or biochemical causative factor is discovered or not, and given that everything seeks to try to reproduce itself, and homosexuals can not do that as heterosexual families can they will seek to do it in other ways, culturally, by the spreading and uptake of their norms.

So far as the RCC goes I dont think they are that family friendly or affirming, to be honest in theory sexuality of all descriptions is devalued in contrast to spirituality, although homosexual acts, as opposed to homosexuality per se, are considered sinful and heterosexual acts for purposes other than procreation are not considered sinful per se. I'll be honest with you though, perhaps it has been how sex abuse scandals have been handled in the Church or other trends I've heard about among the shrinking population of religious in the church and how it has handled attempts to open dialogues about celibacy but I think that the RCC has become objectively opposed to heterosexuality and heterosexual love. I've read eulogising of agape, as opposed to erotic, love which I really felt where just shy of affirming male homosexuality without the act. Its really made me question my membership of this congregation.

*waits on the idiots to seize upon that*

I respect your church and what you say about your church -- I won't argue with you there, as I am not equipped.

But the beginning makes my jaw drop. You're saying homosexuals go around encouraging people to experiment with homosexuality in a way that heterosexuals do not. REALLY?? Homosexuals are not encouraged by heterosexuals to experiment with heterosexuality? Do you want to think about this again? (please do)

Not at all trying to encourage ridicule, etc., no bad motives, begging your pardon in advance if it seems that way, just interested in discussing this in depth because you boggle my mind.

P.S. It is ignorant. It is ignorant about homosexual people. I don't mean to insult you but I do mean to state what I see as a fact, in the hopes you might reconsider some of your ideas which I believe to be wrong and possibly harmful.

Obama said the issue was more generational than political and I'm inclined to agree. My brother is as Republican as they come, but he has gay friends and supports their civil rights. He sharply splits from his conservative elders on this point. On this particular issue, younger generations are pretty on board, the trouble is they're lazy and apathetic, like we all were once.